By the rules of logic, in any element of a theory or proposition is false, the entire theory or proposition is false.

Then how does scientific theories become scientific law, or end up rejected. Because they are either provable or not provable under the scientific
method.

Didn't I cite a source that used the scientific method a large jet hit the pentagon? Be it by an individual with a doctorate pointing out large jet
deniers are hurting his gig pushing WTC CD with rational people.

Perhaps you’ve seen it. Certainly if you’ve seen the “arguments” of Holocaust deniers, you’ve seen it. The desperate attempt to find one
piece of testimony, data, or evidence that does not support conventional science or history. For example, a Holocaust denier will zero in on an
eyewitness account of either a death camp or a Nazi atrocity that doesn’t quite add up. Alternatively, he will make much of the discovery of a false
“Holocaust survivor,” as if finding out that someone lying about having survived the Holocaust somehow invalidates its historicity.

FIUFIO creates a false dichotomy regarding scientific or historical understanding: Either everything is correct, or nothing is true. A single
inconsistency, no matter how peripheral or unrelated, is reason enough for cranks to make a sweeping claim that the whole edifice is crumbling.
Clearly this is far too simplistic and excludes other possibilities. The ridiculousness of such an approach is illustrated well by Holocaust deniers
who point to errors or exaggerations in the testimony of a few survivors (or point to the occasional charlatan who pretended to be a Holocaust
survivor but was not) and try to argue that such errors invalidate the historicity of the Holocaust.

In the end, if you hear hear someone using either False in One = False in All, or the “science was wrong before” gambits, you can be reasonably
sure that their position is not supported by evidence. If it were, they would cite that evidence in support of their position, rather than retreating
to such fallacies to try to support their assertions. Yes, science and history have been wrong before–sometimes spectacularly, amazingly wrong. But
that doesn’t automatically make the crank who invokes such past mistakes right.

Just informative, nothing more, this government exhibit, and not by far, correct evidence of the original situation :

Note the upper pole part, lamp head and truss arm in front of the Lincoln. All neatly laid down together by the same helpful hands of that unknown
assistant of Lloyd the cab driver.?
The missing base part of the pole, with its square base uplifted, lays there behind the bonnet. A neat tableau.

Q.1 : anybody knows if forensic pictures of the real frozen situation from just after the attack were made by any LE agency, before these people threw
these important exhibits all over the place.? Why then, much later on, the US government used this clearly staged LE agency tableau in their Missasoui
trial.
There is the photo of the bended pole piece sticking out of Loydds front wind shield, but without further parts.
Q.2 : why were these two men, photographed from quite a distance in other photos, carefully guarding Loydd and his Lincoln taxi, and why did they not
try to get a photographer to that scene they so diligently guarded, to take forensic important photos from the original situation.?
Q.3 : why were all the southbound lanes locked off directly after the impact behind the exit to the Pike, but were no forensic photographs taken as
exhibits from the original scene.?
If I get a light pole through my front window on the highway, my insurance gets wild if I touched anything before police took evidential photos. I
loose all chances on their payment.
Q.4 : why did they not include the base part, seen laying on the road behind the Lincoln's bonnet left side, in this staged tableau.?
Q.5 : Why did they not include the rest of that right side of the, laying in the forefront in this picture, longer upper pole part piece.? So we can't
make good estimates of its true length.?

Note that the cut base part lays behind the bonnet (with its square base visible), and the 3 cut top parts lay to the right, in front of the Lincoln's
bonnet.

It surely looks to me as if the 34 feet vertical part of a 40 ft long light pole (including its out rigging lamp truss arm) is cut in one lower base
half of about 20 feet long, and the other 3 parts, in total also about 20 feet long, consists of 3 pieces, severed from each other.
The top part of course, including its severed off, lamp truss arm. And that 6 ft long, cut off thinner lamp truss arm part, is situated to the left in
the foreground, beside the lamp part.

And why is someone here going on a plane and wings wobbling tour, when I showed conclusive measurements in a photo with the two allegedly cut poles,
number 1 and 2 as placed in their right, original spot beside Route 27, and my indications of the minimum and maximum heights of possible cut
positions on those two poles.? Is logic lost in this forum.?

If you know the cut heights of pole 1 and 2, at a very specific moment in time, any distractions in the form of leading readers away from such
solid facts, in this case, showing the aleged attack plane's wing tips min-max cutter positions on those two light poles, are exactly that :
Illogical distractions.

Adam Larson's original drawing. With illogical straight wings at 825 KMH, and his straight right wing in there, drawn about 3 feet higher than his own
min-max points indications were showing where that right wing should have cut through.
All an effort to reach the position needed for the right jet engine nacelle, to possibly be the cause of a circular grown top of a tree there,
mimicking a nacelle bite-out from that tree top :

My corrections to Adam's drawing, with the right light pole position spots along Route 27, the right min-max cut-positions on both poles, and the
correct plane and wings positions in their flexed-up positions of about 3 meter higher than during normal cruise speed at 825 KMH :

EDIT : In fact Adam has smuggled in, even more feet with his right wing position, since he also left his pole 1 hanging above the grass beside the
Pike. If you take HIS wing TIP position above MY min-max green lines on my light blue pole 1, his right wing tip position is much higher than 3 feet,
more like 18 feet/5.49 meter/yard, UP TOO FAR as measured from my minimum cut, and 10 feet/3.048 meter/yard up too far from my maximum cut on MY pole
1.

That plane has impacted that overpass bridge in Route 27, when those OBSERVED and measured light pole-1 cuts were REALLY cut by that
B-757-200.

And this is a USGS made terrain contour profile as it was on 9/11/2001, a screenshot taken from this YouTube PfT-video
link here :

And this is my proposed lowest possible AAL77 attack angle, starting its slight turn from over the roofs of the NAVY ANNEX and its Wing 7 roof (8 was
lower).
Then over the top of the row of trees along the small north-south leading portion of the Pike, where Sgt Brooks stood on the other side of them, in
the western parking beside the CITGO's west side, across S. Joyce St., behind that row of trees, and Sgt Lagasse stood at pump 1 under the northern
ceiling (both SWEAR it flew NoC).
And then curving along in a 35 degrees bank angle in its NoC curved flight path, partly over the, to the Pentagon South Parking leading portion of the
same Columbia Pike, then leveling off over Route 27, a.k.a. Washington Boulevard, while only just avoiding the lamp heads of two 40 feet/12.2 meters
high light poles standing in its way there.
Then over that 100 meter/105 yard/330 feet wide lawn, still observed by Sean Boger in the Helipad Control Tower, and already first seen coming towards
him, from the "right of the CITGO" , in its NoC flight path, along the south side of the concrete of the helipad, then slamming into the Pentagon's
west wall column 14.

Note that the other long row of trees halfway further on in this terrain, is not obstructive in AAL77 its NoC trajectory, they stood along the ANC its
east-west leading, southern fence, and AAL77 flew 50 to 100 meters south of these trees :

Title : American Airlines Flight 77 Reconstruction with ATC Recording - September 11 2001 www.youtube.com... by cjnewson88 , member from JREF/ISF.

youtu.be... Starts at video time stamp 1:12:11
Showing a totally wrong position of the plane, far too far to the south of the VDOT radio tower. Terry Morin explained in 2 telephone interviews with
CIT and if I am not wrong about that, 1 with Jeff from his PumpItOut forum, that he definitely saw the plane with its left wing over the roofs of the
Navy Annex WIngs buildings 5 and 6.
This is what's seriously wrong with JREF/ISF its government institutions offered official stories trusting forum posters, they work toward a wanted
outcome, and not on real eyewitness statements and even not on their governments own released DFDR positional data. That DFDR its last OFFICIALLY
ENDORSED by the NTSB, FBI, etcetera recorded positional data point is just beside the south side of the Sheraton Hotel.! Not to be seen at all in the
last flight path seconds of this further excellent video reconstruction with ATC recordings audio added.
And that's such a pity, since there's a lot of hard work spend on this AAL77 video and his other three also ATC recordings accompanied videos, for
AAL11, UAL175 and UAL93, then why not spend that last most important effort to let those crucial last seconds show the real, DFDR and by eyewitnesses
recorded events.?

pale1859, some interesting comments for you in cjnewson88 his AAL77 ATC audio, he later edited this in :

cjnewson88 : At 0:59:00 I stated that at 0920 "Several Radar Controllers Working At Dulles Terminal Radar Approach Control Observe a Primary
Target Tracking Eastbound". This statement is in error. The spotting by Dulles TRACON of the primary target, marked in the reconstruction by the "no
tag" call, occurred 4 minutes later, at 0924. It is unknown whether the primary target, later ID as AA77, was being watched by Radar Controllers at
0920.

Which means that primary radar trackers (main radar) were already alerted on an unknown primary target, targeting DC, FOURTEEN minutes before
impact.! That's 840 seconds they knew already that a no-transponder tagged object was on its way to DC, after a minute or so, when they could plot its
now long enough trajectory for its direction. That's 780 seconds they knew it was coming their way.
Let's say we believe in the DFDR data for that period,since I believe the OFFICIALLY RELEASED PORTION of it is OK, it's just those last extra 4 to 6
seconds of additional data found by Warren Stutt I do not believe in, since I believe the directional data from all those 25 witnesses combined, which
points to a short, shallow turn over the North side of the CITGO gas station, and back to Route 27 and the impact point at column 14, proves Stutt
wrong by misleading last garbled up data offered by the FOIA releasing institute, or he extracted them deliberately wrong, which I personally do not
believe in.

So, we have at least 780 seconds that confirm Mineta's testimony.
Go and find out from the NTSB its outsourced and AAL77 animation I posted before, at what distance from the Pentagon AAL77 was, at that 780 secs from
impact time, at the speed shown in that animation on the left side, over those remaining 780 seconds, and you may subtract of course about half of the
seconds it took to fly the width of the 350 degrees down turn over Virginia, to get to the first REASONABLE possible mileage report from the young guy
in the PEOC, to VC Cheney which was overheard by Mineta. Did he really start with ""50 miles out"" ?
I believe it took about 3 minutes/180 secs for that down turn to complete.? Must be a quite easy task to find out the distance flown in those
remaining 780 - 90 = 690 secs/11.5 minutes to impact.
If it starts at about 50 miles, case proved, end of Mineta bashing.

I try first.
We can see all the various speeds over those 690 seconds on that NTSB animation screen.
I am in a hurry now, may we assume over that first long leg to DC it flew at cruising speed of +800 KMH, or at least at 500 to 400 MPH = 804.7 to
643.7 KMH.?
The DFDR says it flew in that downward turn at 380 to 420 MPH and came out of that downwards turn at 500 MPH/804.7 KMH, up to 513 MPH/825.6 KMH at
impact, so let's assume the mean speed over that yet unknown distance from 600 secs out, to its impact was :

Do you agree with me, that the unknown-target positions, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10 miles out, mentioned by Mineta, which later turned out to be
AAL77 positions, as stated in his Congressional hearing, was with a great amount of certainty, NOT a LIE.?

Has anybody checked if the Mineta Congressional interview even mentioned the 50 miles-out overheard statement from him.? Because I remember
a.f.a.i.k., he started with shorter ranges.

Bonus gift for you, pale1859, since I know what heavy burden you carry every day, bearing shared responsibility with many others, for pilots and
passengers. And I like your laid back, neutral stance all the way up till now :

Two. If the light poles were broken at the bases upon jet collision, then broken in length when striking the ground, all data is useless.

Three, I cited a source the light poles were 36 foot tall, not 40 foot tall.

Four, it's not about the length of the light pole and were it broke when hitting the ground. Most light poles are made to break at the base, which
makes your data useless. If you could even go by where the light pole was broken in length, its about were the light pole was hit relative to the
base of the pentagon. You have to show the base of the light pole and the base of the pentagon are at the same reference elevation. If the are not,
you have to create a reference elevation.

Five. You have not made all light pole measurements relative to the base of the pentagon, so they are useless.

Six. Your assumptions the flight path was static, no pitching/rolling nor jumping/dropping in altitude due to turbulence, and not using relative
height to the pentagon to compensate for eneven ground makes your calculations useless and out of context.

Your attempt to create a false sense of authority and not understanding the true context of the light poles makes your posts a failure.

(28:20 / 44:37 in the last above Lost Tapes video) Narrator : At 9:21 NEADS receives a report of yet another hijacked plane.
Boston ATC :Military Boston Centre just had a report that American 11 is still in the air, and it's on its way towards, heading towards
Washington.
NEADS : American 11 is still in the air.? And it's on its way to Washington.?
BOston ATC : It was another, evidently, another aircraft that hit the tower, that's the latest report we have.
NEADS : Another hijack is heading towards Washington. (said at 28:52) S h i t. Give me a location.! (28:55) Okay, third aircraft
hijacked, heading towards Washington.

LT : A ""THIRD hijacked"" plane, and ""Give me a location"" : that means nobody at NEADS at that moment knew where that supposed AAL11 really
was.! So, the notion launched at several OS trusting boards that AAL11 was at these moments, as thought by NEADS and the FAA their ATC personnel, to
COME FROM A NEW YORK direction, is all poppycock and wishful thinking.
So, where did this first mentioning of a THIRD hijacked plane came in reality from.? That must have been a MAIN RADAR SITE who tracked
non-transponders.! Or a FAA source, from radio or telephone contact.
Thus, nobody at the 9/11Commission or NIST or whatever else incompetent US 9/11 investigating institution asked for that main radar site or the origin
of that THIRD plane report, at any time in the last 16 years.? O'Reilly.?

Narrator : The new sighting of American 11 is actually a mistake.....American 11 is the plane that hit the World Trade Center, 35 minutes earlier.
NEADS : Okay, American Airlines is still airborne, 11, the first guy, he's heading towards Washington. Okay, I think we need to scramble Langley right
now, and I'm gonna take the fighters, some OTIS, and try and chase this guy down if I can find him. (29:47) You sure.? Yeah.! Foxy, scramble
Langley, head 'em towards Washington area. Roger that.

LT : Thus, NEADS had no idea at all where that third blip was. Then they follow up with UAL93 messages.

Narrator : 31:11 / 44:37 : Back at NEADS, the Operations floor receive yet another, hijack report.
Washington ATC : Okay, now let me tell you this. I, we've been looking, we also lost American 77. (31:20)
NEADS : American 77.? American 77 has been lost.
Washington ATC : Excuse me.?
NEADS : Where was he proposed to head, sir.?
Washington ATC : Okay, he was going to L.A. also. They lost contact with him. They lost everything, and they don't have any idea where he is or what
happened.

Neads Master Sergeant Maureen Dooley explains in a interview that they thought that they had two headed in that direction (Washington).
Narrator : Just 1 minute later, at 9:35, more news comes in about one of the two missing planes, believed to be over Washington. The phantom American
11.
Boston ATC : Our latest report, the aircraft VFR six miles southeast of the White House. (32:06)
LT :Report FROM WHOM.?
NEADS : Six miles southeast of the White House.? (Yes) You don't know who he is.?
Boston ATC : Nothing, nothing. We're in Boston so I have no clue.

Narrator : six miles is just seconds from the White House, and it's now in imminent danger. And the same NEADS Master Sergeant says that they thought
that ""we were literally attacked from all angles."" (32:31)

LT : Giant Killer ordered the 2 Langley F-16's out EAST, since they were used to send fighters to a sea inbound threat, while Colonel Massipiny had
ordered them north to Washington. He got really pissed of, and that's clear when you hear him swearing.

What I hear a lot, and see no response on, is mentioning the actual new hijack reports they get in. But they never mention from WHOM they get these
reports, so the other party can quickly check on the validity of that source. That seems a serious communication disaster.

So, in case of possibly atomic attacks, they have no clue whatsoever, where it comes from, in many possible inland bound cases.? A terrorist party
that smuggles a lead skinned, shielded from detection, atomic mini bomb into any US or Canadian harbor, can launch it by means of a drone or self
build rocket.?
Damnit, I'm not going to sleep easy tonight.

Ah, well, they will just detonate it in some big city or near a military object, no fuss with some complicated drone or rocket necessary at all, if
they have it through customs procedures already. So, the awe-wondering will be very short lived, in the milliseconds range....around the next ground
zero. I hope, I and you all too, won't have to live through something evil like that.

Your failure, or willfulness to blindly ignore, to address logical and researched failures of your rumblings on a repeat loop is very telling.

You pushing and producing posts more about propaganda is also telling.

You using fluff YouTube video links, without presenting context or how it supports your point, is also very telling.

Are you part of they don't want you to know the truth? Yet you totally gloss over valid criticism, ignore the shortcomings of your sources, use
material produced as propaganda with no credible evidence, use long posts to push criticisms into the background, which are the tactics of the
"establishment". But the only people using deceitful tactics are those pushing conspiracy theories.

Well since Norman Mineta testified that he arrived at the White House as they were evacuating it, and we know that the evacuation started between
9:35-9:45, then there is no way that the "50 miles out" he heard in the PEOC, was about Flight 77....which had impacted the Pentagon at 9:37-9:39
(depending on the source you check). Then there is also the PEOC log, maintained by the Marines who provide security that lists his arrival as
10:07....

What primary radar trackers? There was/is no primary trackers. The first time this aircraft primary target was picked up after radar contact was lost
in Indy Center was when it was in IAD airspace. I have not seen any evidence to the contrary.

Go and find out from the NTSB its outsourced and AAL77 animation I posted before,

If it starts at about 50 miles, case proved, end of Mineta bashing.

Why would we rely on an animation when the actual replay data is present with audio that can substantiate the replay as valid..

You can label it bashing but that is the only contradiction I see with this information in this thread.

I stand by what I say, with evidence presented, his testimony is inaccurate.

Do you agree with me, that the unknown-target positions, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10 miles out, mentioned by Mineta, which later turned out to be
AAL77 positions, as stated in his Congressional hearing, was with a great amount of certainty, NOT a LIE.?

I agree it was stated with a great amount if certainty but that doesn't make it accurate nor does it necessarily mean it's a LIE. It could be a LIE
but as I stated earlier it could be poor recollection.

Call it what you want, based on the presented evidence, it's inaccurate.

Has anybody checked if the Mineta Congressional interview even mentioned the 50 miles-out overheard statement from him.? Because I remember
a.f.a.i.k., he started with shorter ranges.

It's on the video tape in this thread. He stated 50 miles out, my contention is even 30 miles out is also inaccurate.

One, you originally claimed the light poles cut in half. Yup, still do. Go find that photo of pole 1 its base part with its base still attached. It's all over the Internet, try Adam Larson's blog first,
he has saved a lot of important 9/11 pictures. Then the CIT forum. Other 9/11 poles also showed them broken off at their lowest base part, near the
ground, but also at the alleged wing tip heights.
Well, that's because of mass INERTIA.

Two. If the light poles were broken at the bases upon jet collision, then broken in length when striking the ground, all data is useless. No, pole 1 was clearly cut at 20-23 feet up, and not from a fall, more like "pinched". Check your eyesight first, it needs improvement. Then check
Larson's blog, you'll find all kinds of 9/11 photos there. But the CIT site is better, they have them all. Lucky for you, their links are in the
Larson blog, all over that place, since Craig and Adam clashed a LOT there, in Adam's Comment sections.

Three, I cited a source the light poles were 36 foot tall, not 40 foot tall. An idiot, thus, since it can be easily checked at VDOT that they are 40ft tall. But he clearly meant only the straight up going part, which is by
the way 34 feet high. Still can't do any arithmetic, ain't it.? Check your eyesight first, since it's clear you can't see small texts, and still don't
know how to enlarge my drawings (7x [Ctrl and + keys]), and then check Larson's photo drawing, then my corrected Larson photo drawing too (I'm hiding
nothing , as you hope), with that 34ft text attached to the top of his drawn-in pole-1's its straight part top, put there by Larson, who is not an
idiot by the way. He seemed to know that there was another 6 feet lamp truss arm too, that must be added to the total standard straight light pole
length of 34 feet.

Four, it's not about the length of the light pole and where it broke when hitting the ground. Most light poles are made to break at the base, which
makes your data useless. If you could even go by where the light pole was broken in length, its about were the light pole was hit relative to the
base of the pentagon. You have to show the base of the light pole and the base of the pentagon are at the same reference elevation. If the are not,
you have to create a reference elevation. You clearly never heard of physics its inertia rules.! You're definitely not going to win a Math Championship too.
Missed those three green Elevation values put there by Larson, under his three poles.?
Get it into your stubborn head that elevation compared to the Pentagon has NOTHING to do AT THAT SPOT, with the fact that that alleged plane DID cut
pole 1 at 20 to 23 feet up, proved by Larson's and CIT their VDOT pole photo's and calculations, instantly nullifying all your babbling about
elevation, because that damned plane didn't care about its elevation at THAT spot neither. Because it was going to slam into that overpass bridge a
microsecond later, IF THAT CUT at that height WAS REALLY MADE BY AAL77. And that's why all those other light poles were also part of a false flag
operation.

Five. You have not made all light pole measurements relative to the base of the pentagon, so they are useless. Dammit.! Never seen a more dense and illogical argument, the last months. See my answer to your point four and six, above and below. You seem to
mix all kinds of different arguments made by me, for different scenes, in the same pot, and you fail majestically in doing so.

Six. Your assumptions the flight path was static, no pitching/rolling nor jumping/dropping in altitude due to turbulence, and not using relative
height to the pentagon to compensate for eneven ground makes your calculations useless and out of context. An even more dense argument. How the plane behaved just before or after it cut that pole 1, or if it was rolling or whatever useless arguments you
come up with, doesn't matter. Its behavior at that exact moment that it cut through that pole 1 was recorded in a time window of a microsecond, by the
height of the cuts in those light poles, as if a photo was taken, you can not alter those cuts afterwards, it's recorded for anyone to see,
FOREVER.

And I personally ENJOY this kind of 9/11 preparation FAULTS immensely, just as that time stamped photo at WTC-7 that I found in late 2005, because it
can NOT be reversed anymore by any kind of 9/11 Planners damage control, afterwards. That's why NIST removed all their seismic reports directly after
I publicized that photo, time stamped by THEMSELVES. The 9/11 false flag operation is much wider than you all can grasp. It's world wide....

Your attempt to create a false sense of authority and not understanding the true context of the light poles makes your posts a failure. You did an excellent job yourself, to prove the opposite is true, thank yourself for that.!

By the way, do you even understand that Adam's notions in his drawing, that his right wing tip cut-height through pole-1 in his drawing, his "bitten
out"tree-top, and his, touched at 34 feet high, camera mast its hacked off foot pin, is also total BS.?
All he did, was trying to fit his drawn-in plane into all the FALSE feeds from 9/11 damage control trolls, where JREF, now ISF is filled to the rim
with, while obviously neglecting his own min-max lines on pole 1.
That bitten-out tree top and that broken off foot pin were just scenic coincidences. Or perhaps part of the operation...Here, another video screenshot
from that same scene situation, taken from that Lost Tapes video, in my above post, at 34:53 / 44:37 :

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.